15:07 27/05/2011 WARSAW, May 27 (RIA Novosti) - The Polish defense minister confirmed on Friday that Warsaw and Washington would sign a deal on the permanent deployment of a U.S. air detachment in Poland after U.S. President Barack Obama's upcoming visit to the European state.

Polish media reports have speculated that Obama could announce the transfer of an F-16 squadron from the Aviano base in Italy to the Lask air field in central Poland during his May 27-28 visit to Warsaw.

"An agreement on the permanent deployment of U.S. Air Force assets in Poland and the periodic rotation of F-16 fighters in the country will be signed after Barack Obama's visit," Defense Minister Bogdan Klich said in an interview with the TOK FM radio.

The U.S. detachment will service F-16 fighter jets, Hercules transport planes, and land personnel periodically visiting Poland, the minister said.

Klich expressed hope that the F-16 rotation could start as early as in 2013.

Meanwhile, Russia warned Poland against hosting U.S. fighter jets, saying it would counter the move.

They want a reset and they want Russia to trust that the ABM system in Europe that NATO doesn't seem to want Russia to be part of is not for use against them... but they wont put that in writing.

The simple facts of the matter are that several US administrations have made verbal promises that have been broken... NATO will not expand... NATO will not expand eastwards... NATO will not expand into Ex Soviet republics... New NATO members will no have bases for US or other NATO forces permanantly based on their territory...Our ABM system is not a threat to Russia and will only have 10 interceptors... The new ABM system in Europe will include Russia and is not going to be used against Russia.

Well the current US plans seem to involve navy based interceptors which one will assume will include more than 10 interceptors and this basing of US aircraft in Poland breaks several verbal promises made in the past to Russia.

I agree they need a lot more satellites and their newly created Air and Space Defence branch of their military forces has said as much too.

Expect to see a dramatic increase in military satellites launched by the Russians over the next few years.

The easiest way to defeat ABM missiles in Poland is of course Iskander brigades in Kaliningrad. The latest models used by the Russian military have both ballistic missiles able to manouver to evade defence systems and also cruise missile tubes (6 per vehicle) for low flying cruise missiles that would be perfect for defeating ABM systems.

GarryB wrote:Russia can't and wont outspend the US on military equipment.

Here is how Russia could build a new military for free. Get Putin to make a deal with Kadafi, Russia will get NATO out of Libya. It won't cost Kadafi anything.

The US ratified the Hague Treaty on the Protection of Cultural/Archaeological/Historical sites during War. Get Kadafi to allow Russia to pursue those damages from the US.

Get several Nations to go to Libya and write estimates for all the war damage from the US trying to take over Libya. Present those Estimates to the Hague for settlement, Russia forces US to pay Libya those damages....Russia gets those funds.

The deal with Kadafi would say in exchange for Russia getting that money, Russia would provide Kadafi with 5,000 laborers for 2 years to repair his country.

Whallah....everyone's happy.....Russian military comes back from the dead.

Russia is no more in a position to force NATO out of Libya... or the EU out of Kosovo, than the US is in a position to force Russian forces out of South Ossetia and Abkhazia.

It simply wont happen.

The US has ratified a lot of treaties it currently violates.

The Universal Declaration of Basic Human Rights rights everyone has simply because they are human include a requirement for probable cause. You can't just search someone or their communications or property to try to find evidence of wrongdoing.The US run Echelon system of electronic eavesdropping that operates around the world is an example of the US violating the worlds basic human rights.

They claim its purpose is to stop terrorism and drug trafficing, and child porn rings, and all sorts of noble stuff, but it actually is an economic weapon to spy on allies and enemies to gain an economic advantage by listening in to hear bids for contracts. The NSA, which runs Echelon, has monthly meetings with major US companies to provide them with information they might find useful. Who, within a foreign government is taking bribes and how that could be used to win contracts is just one example of what it is used for.

GarryB wrote:The NSA, which runs Echelon, has monthly meetings with major US companies to provide them with information they might find useful. Who, within a foreign government is taking bribes and how that could be used to win contracts is just one example of what it is used for.

They have a receiving station here in New Zealand at Waihopi (pronounced Why-hope-eye with all syllables with equal emphasis).They gather electronic signals from Asia and Oceania and all the data is transmitted to the US for processing.New Zealand gets the odd bit of intel if they think we need it.

When the French sent special forces to blow up a boat in the harbour of our largest city we got no warning of course, and Unipol, which is largely French run was no help in tracking down the terrorists we did not catch immediately... so it is pretty damn useless to us really.

By my opinion Russia should respond with no matter how strong reaction to each of NATO provocation. Iskander in Kaliningrad, S-400 later S-500 in Belarus (I wonder how good would be S-500 in anti-anti ABM role), Mistral in Northen fleet, etc. If Ukraine splits Russia will have much batter position in protecting its boders as it could use eastern part of Ukraine as well to place Iskander-M/Iskander towards Romania.

I see New Zealand has no problems now letting the US bring nuclear powered ships to port.....just saying...

The current National government is very US friendly but it would be guaranteed out the next election if it allowed a visit by a nuclear powered ship from anywhere.The people of NZ are proud of our nuclear free stance... which likely only got stronger after the unfortunate events in Japan recently.

Who owned the boat the blew up? Was it financially connected to someone outspoken trying to keep nuclear out?

It was the "Rainbow Warrior" owned by Greenpeace and used for protesting French nuclear testing on Pacific Islands.

The French were claiming it was completely safe as the heat fused the rock and sealed in the radiation. When asked why they couldn't do it in France if it was so safe they didn't have an answer.

They decided to sink the ship and in the process of doing so killed a photographer from central or south america.

They first denied anything to do with it but we caught two of the terrorists they started threatening our exports to the EU. In the end the two terrorists were sent to an Atoll in the pacific to serve their time in prison... one got a sore tummy and had to be moved to France for treatment and the other terrorist got pregnant and also went back to France. Interpol were no help at all, in fact they did everything they could to slow down the process.

France has been a dirty word here for some time.

Of course we haven't done anything like "Freedom fries".We always called them chips anyway.

Back on topic

By my opinion Russia should respond with no matter how strong reaction to each of NATO provocation.

I totally agree. If ABM systems in Poland are not directed at Russia then they wont have a problem with Russian ballistic systems based in Kaliningrad.

They already had Tochka-U batteries there and the movement of Iskander was to upgrade and replace the Tochka batteries and was planned some time ago... well before the ABM issues.

The setting up of an ABM system in Europe that Russia is not an equal partner in and with no agreement that it will not be used against Russia should in my opinion lead to Russia withdrawing from the INF treaty.Russia is limited by the new START treaty regarding how many ICBMs, ALCMs, and SLBMs it can have so a new ABM system in Europe will require more missiles to ensure deterrence. Rather than build strategic ballistic missiles which are large and expensive they can build IRBMs which are smaller, lighter, and cheaper to make and operate and could be used to cover targets in Europe, the Middle East and Asia without using up the numbers limited strategic warheads.

If the US wants to sign a treaty limiting ABM systems then I am sure the Russians will agree to a treaty that limits IRBMs so that a balance can be achieved so that deterrence is maintained.

The INF treaty covers all ground launched missiles, ballistic or cruise, designed to hit ground targets.

So SAMs and ABM missiles are not included but ballistic missiles like Iskander and Tochka and cruise missiles like Club are counted if their range is more than 500km or less than 5,000km.

This means that a land launched Kh-101 or Kh-102 would not violate the INF treaty but because its range is greater than 5,000km it would be counted as a strategic nuclear weapon under the START treaty.

If the weapon is air launched it will not be bound by the INF treaty.

The thing is however considering its flight speed it will need to fly at high altitude and relatively straight so for the S-400 it should be a relatively straight forward target. Even the S-300VM can hit targets travelling at 4.5km/s so with the speed of sound being about 320m/s that means it can hit ballistic targets travelling at mach 14.S-400 can do slightly better than that, and S-500 can hit ICBMs so it should be able to hit targets travelling at about 7km/s

The thing is however considering its flight speed it will need to fly at high altitude and relatively straight so for the S-400 it should be a relatively straight forward target. Even the S-300VM can hit targets travelling at 4.5km/s so with the speed of sound being about 320m/s that means it can hit ballistic targets travelling at mach 14.S-400 can do slightly better than that, and S-500 can hit ICBMs so it should be able to hit targets travelling at about 7km/s

Kindly make me understand that speed isn't an issue for interceptors.I mean even if the coming warhead is travelling at a speed of 20M for the interceptor it isn't the speed but the line of trajectory thats important. I mean the interceptor has only to place itself in the flight trajectory of coming warhead/threat even its speed is only 1M...the threat will be neutralised by collision or spraying fragments

Kindly make me understand that speed isn't an issue for interceptors.I mean even if the coming warhead is travelling at a speed of 20M for the interceptor it isn't the speed but the line of trajectory thats important. I mean the interceptor has only to place itself in the flight trajectory of coming warhead/threat even its speed is only 1M...the threat will be neutralised by collision or spraying fragments

Reaction time matters too. You need to have enough range radar system that can

detect target at much larger distance than range of the missile giving it time

Advanced warning, getting radars and missiles ready takes time, so the earlier you know of an attack the more likely you will be able to stop it.

Many Americans believed the SR-71 was some sort of super plane that was not interceptable. They felt that because the Soviet and Russian interceptors of the time were not Mach 3 plus capable.

In actual fact some believed the SR-71 was the first stealth aircraft and the Soviets couldn't reliably track it either... which is rubbish.

Its blended fuselage and wing design did reduce RCS a little but SR-71s were routinely tracked from takeoff to landing by the Soviets and the Chinese.

Not many planes climb so steeply and accelerate to mach 3.

The point is that with a good solid track and rapid calculations of the time it takes you missile to travel any distance a decent computer can quickly calculate an intercept point where missile and aircraft will occupy the same space in time.

It is no different for faster targets, though the timing and accuracy becomes much more critical.

In fact the speed of the interceptor can actually be zero if that interceptor is armour... think of the flak jacket a soldier wears.

Rather than go through the problem of detecting incoming threats and tracking them and determining which are dangerous and which are not and then making attempts to intercept the dangerous objects it is far easier sometimes to simply armour or hide or both, the targets worth hitting. No calculation is needed and the interceptor remains at the point of interception till the interceptor arrives and hits it.

I was talking about the thoughts of American citizens... most of which think Russians and Soviets are the same thing.

Love to wind them up with comments like "Canadian, American, Mexican... its all the North, Central and South American continent... same thing isn't it?", or Scottish and Irish and Welsh is English isn't it because British means English right?

Suddenly you hear that English does not mean British and despite there being two continents named America (north and south) it is only a small group of inhabitants in North America that call themselves Americans.

There were no Russian interceptors until the end of 1991.

Actually technically you are wrong... they had several SPAD aircraft that were used for interception during WWI.

By then Russia was handed an SR-71 by the Americans.

Totally wrong here... the SR-71 was handed to no one... even the Brits aren't allowed to see inside it.It is pretty old now anyway.

The simple fact is that the Soviets had plenty of paper planes that were going to operate at Mach 3 plus... the enormous cost and the fact that flying that fast means flying high and in straight lines and by that time flying high and fast was no longer safe killed the programs.The Sukhoi T-4 was one example.The speed limiting factor on the Mig-25 and Mig-31 for that matter was the engines... they could probably have matched the SR-71s speed if they needed to... they simply didn't need to.Several countries operated Mig-25s including India and Hungary... not cheap to operate but nothing like as expensive as the SR-71.

Poland is adding a standoff cruise missile capability to its air force, signing an agreement to buy the Lockheed Martin AGM-158A Joint Air-to-Surface Standoff Missile (JASSM) on 11 December.

In addition to the purchase of the missiles, the programme will also include the upgrade of 46 Polish Air Force Lockheed Martin F-16C/D Block 52 Fighting Falcon fighter aircraft to carry the missiles.

Tomasz Siemoniak, Polish minister of national defence and deputy prime minister, stated during the signing ceremony at the 31 Tactical Air Base at Krzesiny that "never in [Poland's] history have we had such a modern weapon".

Poland is purchasing the new capability as part of an effort to increase its airborne, naval, and land-based long-range strike assets. This is combined with new defensive missile programmes and is intended to deter hostile actions against Poland. These efforts have been given new impetus by the crisis in Ukraine and concerns about Russia's intentions.

Following the government-to-government letter of offer and acceptance on 11 December, a contract is expected to be awarded to contractor Lockheed Martin in the first quarter of 2015, a company statement said.

The agreement to buy the JASSM follows US Congress approval on 2 October of the sale of up to 40 of the stealthy cruise missiles and the F-16 upgrade package.

According to the Polish Ministry of Defence (MoD), the upgrade process for its F-16s will include the installation of retrofit kits and new software for the aircraft to Mid-Life Update tape M6.5 standard.

Beginning in 2015 two Polish F-16s will have the new software integrated and will conduct flight-trials in the United States. The remaining 44 aircraft will receive the software upgrade and retrofit kits at Polish air bases from the second half of 2016 onwards, when the country also expects to receive its first batch of missiles.

When the US Defense Security Co-operation Agency notified the possible sale of the JASSM to Poland on 17 September it estimated the maximum cost of the programme at USD500 million: a figure that Polish sources previously described as "unacceptably high".

However, Polish deputy defence minister Czeslaw Mroczek, responsible for negotiating the purchase, stated that the price of the contract "was negotiated [for a] long [time], but we received a very good price and the contract includes not only the acquisition of JASSM missiles, but also the development of customised software and training".

Some 100 American soldiers handling the Patriot missiles in Germany and 30 vehicles will participate in the exercise on Polish territory held as part of Operation Atlantic Resolve, a series of multinational training and security operations designed to boost Western military presence on NATO eastern flank.

The Pentagon earlier announced plans to trim down its permanent base in Europe.

Meanwhile, the US military is stepping up short-term deployments across Europe

Signed on 17 December, the contract covers the delivery of 1,000 missiles, manufactured under license by ZM Mesko in Poland.

The first 100 missiles will be delivered to Polish Land Forces in 2017, with 300 following in 2018, 300 in 2019, and the final 300 in 2020.

No new firing units are included in the order, with all the new missile containers to be equipped with a mounting attachment to allow them to be fitted to the dual launchers used on the Hitfist-30P two-crew turret that arms Poland's modernised Rosomak 8x8 Infantry Fighting Vehicle (IFV).

The new Spike-LR missiles will also be used on the dual launcher of the new Huta Stalowa Wola (HSW) ZSSW-30 remote-controlled turret currently being tested by the military for the Rosomak and the 'Borsuk' future Polish tracked IFV being developed by HSW. The serial production of the ZSSW-30 turret is planned to start in 2017.

Poland selected the Spike-LR under a non-competitive process in 2002. A PLN1.49 billion contract followed in December 2003 for 264 launchers and 2,675 missiles for dismounted use by the mechanised, air assault, and air cavalry battalions. Under the original deal, 53% of the missiles were produced by ZM Mesko, including both the precursor and main warheads, launch and flight motors, argon gas titanium pressure tank, solid-fuel, a canister, and partially the servo. While CCD/IIR seeker, gyroscope, battery, and the rest of the servo components are delivered by Rafael ADS. The initial Rafael-built missiles entered Polish service in 2004, with Rafael awarding ZM Mesko a production certificate for the missiles in 2007.